24 September 2022, NIICE Commentary 8285
Anup Kumar Saha
River is a source of vital water resources for human subsistence in terms of meeting agrarian, commercial, and domestic demands. Those water resources are worth a fortune to them, and they cross their fingers every day hoping to see another sunrise. Simultaneously, the river basin communities are sweating in the harsh sunlight while gazing at the river. So, river water appears to have become a life saver and a life hazard.
In South Asia, twenty major rivers that span South Asian countries have shaped the economics and civilizations of this region. Historically, human civilization has been anchored upon this riverbank, and the development and destruction of human civilization has been tied to river water. Most notably, the Indus Valley civilization of Harrappa, which was centered on the Indus River and was led by a system of perennially monsoon-fed rivers. At the same time, the enormous rivers Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra have incorporated the cultural and economic pulse of South Asia, which has contributed to the propensity and ascent of some of the early civilizations.
Water, as a valuable resource, is obviously susceptible in the South Asian region due to the state-centric apparatus driven by poor water resources planning and management. Rivers in South Asia have become very vital for national, regional development. Freshwater resources play a critical role in the world’s most diverse biodiversity. River water has obviously been saved survival as a species in way of offering a source of human livelihood and subsistence, and rivers in South Asia are revered by the religious and cultural setting. But the water conflict in terms of river water sharing and distribution between and among countries makes a worse fortune in South Asia.
Rivers in South Asia are transboundary in nature. Transboundary Rivers and aquifers in South Asia promote interdependence among states and nations. However, South Asian prospects for transboundary river water are politically circumscribed. When it comes to the question of human survival while maintaining the ecological balance, transboundary river water has come into conversation on how river water means for human survival. But, negotiations over South Asia’s water resources get stymied by opposing national interests, undermining human survival. In South Asia’s transboundary river, negotiations have been induced by state interest. Human interest is hardly ever valued when it pertains to matters of state. Negotiations over the water course become entrapped between state and human interest, becoming deceptive when water is the means for human survival. This is not because humans, on the one hand, and states, on the other hand, have an interest in negotiation, but because the negotiation period in between, where whose interests matter most, becomes a set of alternative challenges in which humans are struggling most. It took 9 and 35 years, respectively, to negotiate the Indus water treaty between India and Pakistan and the Ganga water treaty between India and Bangladesh. Since both interests are vital and at the same time the transboundary nature of the river is concerned, the duration of the negotiation period over the transboundary river water acts as a wall between state and human interest.
Despite having lasted a long time to negotiate, the Indus, Ganges, and Mahakali water treaties are all very significant in the case of South Asian river water to get a fair share of water that meets the needs of humans. Simultaneously, the Teesta, a transboundary river that runs through India and Bangladesh, is no longer an exception. It’s been a long period of time since Teesta was converted for discussion between India and Bangladesh. The long-awaited Teesta deal has become a burning issue in the national discourses of Bangladesh. It’s been a long period of time since 1947, Teesta has become debated over its sharing of water between India and Bangladesh. The decades long water shortage in the Teesta River has affected the Teesta basin communities socially, economically, and culturally as Teesta is tied to the basin communities’ survival.
In addition to that, the ongoing water shortage in river water has become a water crisis, a matter of fact that water flow has been wittingly modulated in respect of entering and outgoing water in a terrain with supply sufficiency inherently. At the same time, the ecological sustainability of water species composition and other factors is inextricably linked to effective and adequate water flow. If water flow is impeded, the entire environmental ecosystem is stuck, affecting environmental degradation and living beings. All of this is responsible for the flow of water. Because when flow swells, floods and land degradation destroy human existence; when the flow falls, a water shortage impairs people’s lives by limiting them from fulfilling their daily demands. This is where effective and proper water flow, as well as ecological sustainability, becomes very important for Teesta river water discourses. However, no conclusion has yet been reached. It’s still being worked out. At the same time, China’s recent initiative to alleviate the Teesta River water issue has added a new dimension to the debate over Teesta river water among civil society groups. In addition to these continuing struggles, the negotiation period’s core issue—human vulnerabilities—must be addressed because it wasn’t considered at any juncture coherently in the discourses around river water.
Their everyday reality has not yet been referenced in any of the water discourses on how they undermine their everyday survival. It is worrisome to see that while addressing discourses about river water, the duration between negotiations has not yet been factored into the equation. The riverine community dwelling on the river bank, which is under serious existential threat, is whose concern is human misery during the interim of the negotiations. Here between time periods of a negotiating process, no state can be held responsible for those who are affected by a water shortage. But this should not be a water concern for a state when people are suffering for water during the negotiation period. Because the state is the ultimate guarantee of its people’ survival, alternative strategies for negotiating time for those who rely on river water should be taken care of. This could potentially be a water security issue, as water security has been entrapped during the negotiation period.
Bangladesh is a river-prone country known as the Land of Rivers because of its 700 rivers, and also one of the countries with emerging economic growth. Rivers and soil are woven with the vitality of the people of Bangladesh. At the same time, River water has had quite a major chunk in the Indian subcontinent’s development and growth culturally, historically, geographically, politically, socially, and economically. So, South Asia’s regional dimension was thereafter confined in river water. Despite having lasted a long time to negotiate, the Indus, Ganges, and Mahakali water treaties are all very significant in the case of South Asian river water to get a fair share of water that meets the needs of humans.
When it comes to the question of human survival while maintaining the ecological balance, transboundary river water has come into conversation on how river water means for human survival. But, negotiations over South Asia’s water resources get stymied by opposing national interests, undermining human survival.
Anup Kumar Saha is a PhD Candidate at Department of International Relations, South Asian University, New Delhi.
